FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[CookinFlat6]

Spanky says biofuels used in cars TODAY are carbon negative. So the more you drive around in your biodiesel car the more you REMOVE carbon from the environment


And the key to bio negative biofuels is to capture the carbon emitted at the tail pipe

We will see cars driving around with carbon sinks attached to the exhaust?

And so we don't eat because we grow plants and burn them because they remove carbon lol.

I have done my bit - raised awareness of the issues and the lengths some internet moderators will go to push lies on others

Apart from one or two or three on here (depending on user ids) I can safely say everyone is now aware of your importance when it comes to making claims and tell g stories

[sagi58]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???...

...is it possible to have people like this after being educated?...

Personally, I can't help but feel pity for you.

Another lame pot shot. Do you have anything worthwhile at all to contribute? ... If you don't understand sh!t, just be silent and read the debate instead of taking potshots at one of the guys engaged in debate...

They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so thank you!!

I wasn't referring to the debate the two of them were having, which was interesting.
I am speaking directly to the fact that Cookin is incapable of making any sort of point
without being patronizing, condescending and even arrogant, at times.

Ironically, Cookin' likes to point out ONE of the reasons forums were created (i.e., to
debate); yet, he misses the point of debating when he starts insulting others who don't
agree with him. Proving a point does not include being rude and offensive, rather you
you lose credibility when you attack the person, instead of countering their view.

Mind you, I am probably wasting my time trying to explain that to you as you seem
to think it's fair game, considering how often you cheer him on.

[What's Burning?]

You guys are missing the point by trying to convince the other of your "side".

Until cold fusion comes along, there will be nothing more efficient in feeding our energy requirements, not only from a anergry source but also from an energy delivery standpoint than renewablly sourced electricity. The infrastructure is in place and it just needs the collective push from governments in creating the required collection pints.

Biofuels have their place as a way to help conserve the use of petrofuels but they physically can never fulfill the energy demands we have today but surely it is impossible to create a efficient and financially viable carbon negative source, and the logic used to sell that is the same as the logic of someone trying to sell a perpetual motion machine.

[What's Burning?]

I wasn't referring to the debate the two of them were having, which was interesting.
I am speaking directly to the fact that Cookin is incapable of making any sort of point
without being patronizing, condescending and even arrogant, at times.

Ironically, Cookin' likes to point out ONE of the reasons forums were created (i.e., to
debate); yet, he misses the point of debating when he starts insulting others who don't
agree with him. Proving a point does not include being rude and offensive, rather you
you lose credibility when you attack the person, instead of countering their view.

Mind you, I am probably wasting my time trying to explain that to you as you seem
to think it's fair game, considering how often you cheer him on.

Respect is something that in order to work, has to be earned and it has to be mutual. Some thing that's difficult for some to accept. Arguing a wrong point in spite of all the presented evidence is not something that can be effectively respected, just because. You can have beliefs based solely on faith and passion and whatever else, but then don't try to sell them as facts and then demand an equal level of respect. Ironically your desire to make claims about cookie's rudeness you miss the point of debating, as you cannot debate facts with opinions without losing your credibility.

[Hammer278]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???...

...is it possible to have people like this after being educated?...

Personally, I can't help but feel pity for you.

Another lame pot shot. Do you have anything worthwhile at all to contribute? ... If you don't understand sh!t, just be silent and read the debate instead of taking potshots at one of the guys engaged in debate...

They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so thank you!!

I wasn't referring to the debate the two of them were having, which was interesting.
I am speaking directly to the fact that Cookin is incapable of making any sort of point
without being patronizing, condescending and even arrogant, at times.

Ironically, Cookin' likes to point out ONE of the reasons forums were created (i.e., to
debate); yet, he misses the point of debating when he starts insulting others who don't
agree with him. Proving a point does not include being rude and offensive, rather you
you lose credibility when you attack the person, instead of countering their view.

Mind you, I am probably wasting my time trying to explain that to you as you seem
to think it's fair game, considering how often you cheer him on.

The problem is you're one big hypocrite. Spanked has been equally rude throughout the debate on this thread but you conveniently look past all that just because Cookin is the one who's made you look stupid multiple times on this forum. It's tough to take anything you say seriously when you're so blindly biased for your 'own type'.

[sagi58]

... Ironically your desire to make claims about cookie's rudeness you miss the point of debating, as you cannot debate facts with opinions without losing your credibility.

You think so? That's fine; but, people debate opinions / facts / perspectives all the time.
Being respectful of others and not stooping to insults does not necessarily mean you accept
what they are saying as being true / factual.

As an example, take a look at the exchange we just had. We don't agree with one another;
but, no insults were traded.

[What's Burning?]

... Ironically your desire to make claims about cookie's rudeness you miss the point of debating, as you cannot debate facts with opinions without losing your credibility.

You think so? That's fine; but, people debate opinions / facts / perspectives all the time.
Being respectful of others and not stooping to insults does not necessarily mean you accept
what they are saying as being true / factual.

As an example, take a look at the exchange we just had. We don't agree with one another;
but, no insults were traded.

That's a really bad example actually, because they're both our respective opinions therefore CAN carry the same value. It's only when you try to equate opinions with facts that things go awry.

[sagi58]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???...

...is it possible to have people like this after being educated?...

Personally, I can't help but feel pity for you.

Another lame pot shot. Do you have anything worthwhile at all to contribute? ... If you don't understand sh!t, just be silent and read the debate instead of taking potshots at one of the guys engaged in debate...

They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so thank you!!

I wasn't referring to the debate the two of them were having, which was interesting.
I am speaking directly to the fact that Cookin is incapable of making any sort of point
without being patronizing, condescending and even arrogant, at times.

Ironically, Cookin' likes to point out ONE of the reasons forums were created (i.e., to
debate); yet, he misses the point of debating when he starts insulting others who don't
agree with him. Proving a point does not include being rude and offensive, rather you
you lose credibility when you attack the person, instead of countering their view.

Mind you, I am probably wasting my time trying to explain that to you as you seem
to think it's fair game, considering how often you cheer him on.

The problem is you're one big hypocrite. Spanked has been equally rude throughout the debate on this thread but you conveniently look past all that just because Cookin is the one who's made you look stupid multiple times on this forum. It's tough to take anything you say seriously when you're so blindly biased for your 'own type'.

Unfortunately, anyone can only take so much until they respond in kind.
I focussed on Cookin' because that's how he ALWAYS responds to ANYONE
who doesn't agree with him.

As for making me look stupid, don't kid yourself, just because I choose to
walk away from childish comments doesn't mean I've run off with my tail
between my legs. Someone has to take the high road and it's obviously
not going to be him.

By the way, since you seem to think you know me so well, what is my "own type"?

[CookinFlat6]

I was busy this morning,happily I have a bit of time now to add a conclusion

1) How do we achieve negative emission TODAY using bio fuels?

Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has studied with Glaser and worked with Sombroek. He estimates that by the end of this century terra preta schemes, in combination with biofuel programmes, could store up to 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon a year — more than is emitted by all today’s fossil-fuel use

2) How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

You just keep selling that charging toxic batteries with fossil fuel powered electricity is the solution. Don't believe what the IEA, Google and countless others have said is viable, practical and safe, I'm sure you know better. Perhaps biofuels will be dust in a few years along with F1

3) How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero ONGOING LIFETIME OF THE CAR USAGE DISCOUNTING THE EMISSION COST OF PRODUCTION emission

You're not satisfied with the sandwich-board you want to add some highlights
1) every litre of biofuel created as per my previous posts creates negative emissions - exactly according to the calculations of the professors I have verbatim quoted - sorry if you can't do the math, and I'm even sorrier for the people you give any advise dependent on math
2) using biofuel today is not equal to using electricity. If you use the biofuel I have explained you create negative emissions, if you use electricity in, say the UK today, you are "adding" to CO2 in the atmosphere because today nearly 80% of electricity in the UK is fossil fuel generated. Can you really be that .......
3) learn to do math and you will understand

And who needs facts anyway?

Sagi, the IEA, all the professors and scientist you have claimed are wrong, plus the new ones you found all have something in common - we all agree

[sagi58]

... Ironically your desire to make claims about cookie's rudeness you miss the point of debating, as you cannot debate facts with opinions without losing your credibility.

You think so? That's fine; but, people debate opinions / facts / perspectives all the time.
Being respectful of others and not stooping to insults does not necessarily mean you accept
what they are saying as being true / factual.

As an example, take a look at the exchange we just had. We don't agree with one another;
but, no insults were traded.

That's a bad example actually, because they're both our respective opinions therefore CAN carry the same value. It's only when you try to equate opinions with facts that things go awry.

Actually, it's quite a good example. It's a fact that respect must be part of any debate.
It's a FACT that they two of them are debating. And, it's a FACT that Cookin' can't debate
without resorting to insults.

[spankyham]

And the key to bio negative biofuels is to capture the carbon emitted at the tail pipe

You just keep giving, stuffing that foot of yours further and further down your own mouth. I'll let you in on a little secret, atmospheric carbon is carbon no matter where you capture it.

[What's Burning?]

... Ironically your desire to make claims about cookie's rudeness you miss the point of debating, as you cannot debate facts with opinions without losing your credibility.

You think so? That's fine; but, people debate opinions / facts / perspectives all the time.
Being respectful of others and not stooping to insults does not necessarily mean you accept
what they are saying as being true / factual.

As an example, take a look at the exchange we just had. We don't agree with one another;
but, no insults were traded.

That's a bad example actually, because they're both our respective opinions therefore CAN carry the same value. It's only when you try to equate opinions with facts that things go awry.

Actually, it's quite a good example. It's a fact that respect must be part of any debate.
It's a FACT that they two of them are debating. And, it's a FACT that Cookin' can't debate
without resorting to insults.

And that's your opinion that you're once again using as fact. Now let's step out of this wonderful debate on energy if we can't add anything of value to further the science.

[CookinFlat6]

And the key to bio negative biofuels is to capture the carbon emitted at the tail pipe

You just keep giving, stuffing that foot of yours further and further down your own mouth. I'll let you in on a little secret, atmospheric carbon is carbon no matter where you capture it.

Where do you capture it when burning it as fuel in your car Spankee?

You agree burning biodeisel emits carbon yes?
So explain again how that emission is negative please spankee

[CookinFlat6]

Ironically, Cookin' likes to point out ONE of the reasons forums were created (i.e., to
debate); yet, he misses the point of debating when he starts insulting others who don't
agree with him. Proving a point does not include being rude and offensive, rather you
you lose credibility when you attack the person, instead of countering their view.
.

Great debating there sagi, cleverly avoiding the argumentum ad hominem

[CookinFlat6]

So lets get this straight again

You're not satisfied with the sandwich-board you want to add some highlights
1) every litre of biofuel created as per my previous posts creates negative emissions -

And when we burn it in our ICE car what happens then Spankee?